Couldn't load picture

Couldn't load picture


Even at this late date, some aspects of the JFK assassination remain kinder spiel. That Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill JFK is a virtual certainty. In fact, his activity in New Orleans during 1963 demonstrates quite clearly that he was working for JFK. In order to understand how, it is first necessary to understand two political problems that JFK faced during his tenure as President; 1) Cuba; and 2) what is now known as the Civil Rights Movement.

Because the political problem with Cuba resulted from how JFK got elected President, it is necessary at this point to understand how JFK got elected. To understand how JFK got elected, it is necessary to go back in history at least as far as the conclusion of WWII. At that point in time, Harry Truman, a Democrat, was President. He subsequently was re-elected in the 1948 presidential election. Dwight Eisenhower, at that point in time also a Democrat, was enormously popular as a result of the extremely competent manner in which he directed the allied war effort in the European theater of operations. "Ike" defected from the Democratic Party and became a Republican. Presumably one of the reasons for Ike's switch was Truman's admonishment for him to stay out of politics like a military man should. 1Thus, the Democrats lost the services of easily the most electable man in America to the Republicans.

In 1948, Richard Nixon was elected as a delegate to the House of Representatives by his constituents in California, and became a member of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). Edward Hebert, a former newspaper editor from New Orleans, was also a member of the committee. Nixon achieved a great deal of publicity from his role in the committee's investigation of Alger Hiss, who was accused by Whitaker Chambers, an assistant editor with Time magazine, of being a Communist. History has vindicated Hiss, at least as far as the accusation of being a Communist is concerned, but in 1948 Hiss could not have acted more guilty had he tried. In any event, the Hiss-Chambers affair garnered some six months of headlines and anti-Communist hysteria became part of American heritage. Nixon figured prominently in this publicity.

Ike, with Nixon as his Vice President, was elected President in 1952. He was again elected in 1956, again with Nixon as his running mate. During the eight years of Ike's tenure as president, the activities of the anti-Communists fell into extreme public disfavor. Probably the most infamous of these anti-Communists was Joseph (not Eugene, the Democratic candidate who ran for the Democratic nomination and lost in 1968) McCarthy, a senator from Minnesota. The disfavor was so extreme that the activity of the anti-Communists, which acquired the moniker McCarthyism, was equated with witch hunting.

Nixon was Ike's heir apparent. However, because McCarthyism had fallen into such disfavor with the American public, and because Communist hunting was how Nixon "made his bones," Nixon had an image problem. One way to polish his image was to demonstrate that the zealousness with which Nixon conducted his anti-Communist affairs was justified. The reader should initially note that the Soviets had already made the average American uneasy with the launch of Sputnik in October of 1957. By all accounts, this event undermined the sense of American superiority with regard to rocket and missile technology. With this uneasiness already in the background, communism began to emerge as increasingly threatening. Three instances will be digested here, and not in chronological order. The first is the increase in communist activity in what was then South Viet Nam. In January of 1960, communist forces invaded some districts in the Mekong delta. Land was taken from the rich and given to the poor. While the communist control in these districts was temporary, the invasion is sometimes referred to as the start of the Viet Nam War (Tonkin Resolution notwithstanding).

The specter of communism also "reared its ugly head" 2 with the "defection" of Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald was a former Marine who was a radio operator at an airbase used by U2 planes. On November 16, 1959, an article appeared in the Fort Worth newspaper reporting that Oswald was attempting to defect. On that same day, he was visited by Priscilla Smith, a former assistant to the then-Senator JFK. An article resulting from her interview then appeared in the Boston Globe. That article also described Oswald's purported attempt to defect. On May 1, 1960, Gary Francis Powers was flying a mission over the Soviet Union was he was allegedly shot down. There will, of course, be much more about Lee Harvey Oswald infra. Suffice it to say for now that he was repatriated in June of 1962 with surprisingly little fuss. Moreover, he was subsequently able to procure employment with Jaggars-Stiles-Stovall, a printing firm located in Dallas, Texas. This firm had a contract with the United States Army to set the typescript for its maps, and the firm's employees who performed related functions, one of which was not Oswald, needed security clearance.

The specter of communism appeared right on our own doorstep in Cuba with Castro's overthrow of the Batista (aka "the man") regime on January 1, 1959. Castro was the son of a wealthy former peasant who acquired his wealth by harvesting sugar on land leased from the United Fruit Company and using the proceeds of the sugar crop to purchase land.3 He financed Fidel's education by the Jesuits, where he attended class with those who would subsequently be his closest Revolutionary companions. 4 Castro was not a communist during his youngest years, and his purported conversion to communism was a very quiet one. 5 Prior to the revolution, the Ortodoxos is the only political party to which Castro ever belonged. 6 Cuban Communists didn't initially embrace Castroism, and in fact backed Batista until well after Castro's coup was successfully completed. 7 Although some reports in the American media described Castro and his new regime as communist both during the process of and after his coup, 8 he did not publicly announce that he was communist until 1961. Indeed, prior to that point, Castro accused the United States of decreeing the destruction of his revolutionary government on the pretext that it was Communist dominated.9 Reports that Castro was Communist appear to have originated from Democrats.10 Nixon claims that in April of 1959 he wrote a confidential memorandum for distribution to the CIA, the State Department, and the White House stating that Castro was "either incredibly naive about Communism or under Communist discipline" and should be treated accordingly. 11 During JFK's campaign for President, Castro described him as an "illiterate and ignorant millionaire."12 The absence of Communists in the Cuban Council of Ministers at the end of 1960 was total. 13

Some basic bottom-line facts about the revolution are the following. There is at least nearly universal, and maybe universal, agreement that conditions in Cuba were not ripe for revolution.14 Most historical accounts state that Castro accomplished his coup with fewer than a thousand men. One account states fifteen hundred. After Castro's coup, the United States imposed an embargo on American exports to Cuba, excepting only food and medicine. With the exception of sugar, no embargo was placed on goods imported from Cuba to America. Among the Cuban goods not subject to the import embargo was tobacco. Neither air nor sea transport between the United States and Cuba was prohibited. 15

Couldn't load picture

The big loser of the Revolution was the United Fruit Company. A "Boston based corporate giant," it owned very substantial interests in Cuba, as well as many other locations in Latin America.16 A succession of disruptions in Latin America that began during the Eisenhower administration resulted in considerable loss to the company. These and other economic difficulties of the United Fruit Company during the 1950s look a lot like Boston's punishment for its Representative's opposition to the Taft-Hartley Amendment. 17 United Fruit has been described as having been the dominant political force in Cuba. Until 1959, it was untouchable - no labor problems, no excessive taxation, no interference with the privileges of its rank.18 In 1959, United Fruit's holdings in Cuba were nationalized. Certainly one big winner of the Revolution was the state of Louisiana, the source of most of the domestic sugar consumed by Americans. Prior to the Revolution, Cuba supplied almost one third of the sugar consumed in the United States. Once the United States stopped importing from Cuba, either the cost of sugar rose from a reduced supply measured against a constant demand, or the cost of sugar rose from the increased cost of replacing the sugar formerly imported from Cuba. Either way, Louisiana's GNP significantly increased as a result of the Revolution. It is interesting to note the loss to the United Fruit Company (headquartered in Boston at that point) vis-a-vis the gain of the state of Louisiana when it is remembered that JFK voted in pro-labor fashion against the Taft-Hartley amendments to the National Labor Relations Act while Edward Hebert sat in anti-labor fashion on HUAC. Assuming no coincidence, it is clear that the Mafia, assuming one even exists, could not bring about that situation.

Moreover, the situation in Cuba placed JFK in an interesting position. The ambivalence of Castro with respect to Communism meant that he could go either way on the issue. If JFK opposed invasion, then Castro might announce that he was a Communist, and JFK would appear soft on communism. If JFK favored invasion, then Castro could repudiate any allegation that he was a Communist, and JFK would be accused of risking American lives for the economic benefit of his homeboys, the United Fruit Company. Thus, it should come as no surprise that what to do about Cuba was a major issue in the 1960 presidential election. Given that the media had effectively linked Castro with communism, Nixon might have seemed initially more qualified than JFK on this issue by virtue of how he rose to public prominence. However, during the fourth debate between the two candidates, JFK urged that Cuba be invaded, and Nixon disagreed. Thus, the anti-Communist "heavy" emerged from the debate as being the softer of the two candidates with regard to the Communist "menace." JFK won the election. 19

The political problem with Cuba did not disappear as a result of JFK's election victory. In April of 1961, JFK permitted an attempted invasion of Cuba by Cuban exiles under the auspices of the CIA. From a military standpoint, the invasion was a disaster. The conservative element of the establishment assigned the blame to JFK. Excepting only under the general principle of respondeat superior, it is difficult to see how JFK should have incurred this blame. On April 4, 1961, he authorized the invasion of Cuba by exiles armed by the United States, apparently complete with one air strike by American planes flown by exiled pilots claiming to be defectors from Castro's Cuba. On April 11, JFK stated at a press conference that he would not undertake, "under any condition, an intervention in Cuba by the United States armed forces." 20 On April 13, Allen Dulles urged JFK to proceed with the invasion, and assured him of success. 21 The operation, of course failed. When its failure first appeared imminent, JFK was asked to authorize a second air strike, one that could not be explained by the "defecting Cuban" cover. JFK refused to do so. His refusal constitutes the basis for levying the blame upon him. Sixteen years later, James Wilcot testified before the HSCA that "[t]he theme was always the same: get something started to overtly call in the military and follow up with complete seizure and installation of a favorable government." 22 This statement not only reveals that JFK was not to blame for the Bay of Pigs fiasco, but also openly reveals the existence of a problem the CIA had with JFK.

In early 1962, a book written by Richard Nixon entitled Six Crises was published. Somehow the 1960 Presidential election campaign rose to the level of a crisis, and Nixon utilizes over one hundred-fifty pages to describe it from his perspective. In this chapter, Nixon describes the sequence of events that led him "[f]or the first and only time in the campaign [to get] mad at Kennedy - personally." 23 He related that on October 20, 1960, newspapers reported that JFK was advocating direct intervention in Cuba in the form of U. S. assistance to Cuban anti-Castro forces both in exile and in Cuba. Although Nixon alleged that Kennedy's proposed course of action would be violative of U. S. treaties with other Latin American countries, Nixon wrote that pursuant to his recommendation the CIA had been providing arms, ammunition, and training to Cubans exiled both in America and other Latin American countries since early in 1960. 24 The alleged program was covert and its alleged existence classified. 25 Nixon also wrote that Fred Seaton said that "the White House" said that Allan Dulles said that JFK was briefed on Cuba by CIA representatives on July 23, 1960, and further that JFK had been informed during the briefing of the fact that Cuban exiles were being trained for the eventual purpose of supporting an invasion of Cuba.26 Newspaper reports regarding that briefing confirm that it occurred, that it was a "nothing withheld rundown" of the two then-current hotspots, Cuba and the Congo. 27 According to Nixon, because the covert nature of the program had to be protected at all costs, he was forced into the position of attacking JFK's suggestion as wrong and irresponsible,28 and that this increased his "rage."29 When Nixon's book appeared in print in 1962 (the copyright was registered on March 29, 1962), the White House issued a statement denying that JFK had ever been informed of any United States operation pertaining to Cuba during the two hour and fifteen minute briefing. 30

The so-called liberal press contributed heavily to the political problem presented by Cuba, especially Lucepress. Henry Robinson Luce has been described as having been "Lord High Admiral of the free world's greatest fleet of publications."31 Among his publications were Time, Life, and Fortune. After the abortive Bay of Pigs incident, Luce's publications began advocating another invasion of Cuba. Fortune magazine, departing from its usual financial fare, ran a long article supporting the CIA and its role in the Bay of Pigs incident and placed the blame for the failure squarely on JFK. 32 The article quoted Luce's wife, Clare Booth Luce, who was formerly the ambassador to Italy, as saying that Cuba was an issue "not only of American prestige but of American survival." 33 In 1963, Life magazine began a one magazine campaign to garner public support for the paramilitary adventures of the Cuban exiles.34 The Luces accepted an invitation to lunch at the White House, and were reportedly asked by JFK to tone down their coverage of the exiles. 35 The conversation reportedly became heated, and the Luces left without first eating their desert. 36

Couldn't load picture

The foregoing should suffice to demonstrate that Cuba presented JFK with one major problem. A second major political problem of JFK's pertained to the Civil Rights movement. From a purely political standpoint, civil unrest is generally unwelcome by the administration under which it occurs. The public often blames the officials currently in power, even if the unrest was not occasioned by any act of the official. The problem was even more acute with regard to the Civil Rights movement. From a purely political standpoint, the activities of Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) put JFK in a no-win situation. If he intervened on MLK's behalf, JFK would lose the support of most or all who viewed blacks unfavorably. If he didn't intervene on MLK's behalf, he would lose the support of those whites who were sympathetic to the black cause. Moreover, it was clear that JFK was not going to win the support of black America in any event due to the fact that JFK was pro labor. His opposition to the Taft-Hartley Amendments, his increase of the minimum wage, and his issuance of Federal Executive Order 10988 demonstrate this fact beyond peradventure. MLK was not. Black America, for whatever reason, has consistently refused to regard its problems as a matter of economic class rather than as a matter of race, and thus has historically excused itself from any mass participation in any mass effort to win economic accommodations via conflict with the American bourgeois.37 It has, however, participated in mass efforts to undermine the labor movement. 38

Even given these considerations, JFK did the right thing with regard to integration. He did so notwithstanding that even within his administration, only he and his brother wanted to side with Black America.39 On the eve of George Wallace's capitulation to the Justice Department (headed by Robert Francis Kennedy) at the University of Alabama, JFK promised that he would ask Congress "to make a commitment the proposition that race has no place in American life or law."40 When he made good on his promise, there were those who predictably objected because they disliked Black America. There were also (predictably) objections from those within the Civil Rights Movement who felt that the proposed legislation did not go far enough, notwithstanding that it was by far the most comprehensive bill ever to receive consideration by Congress. 41 More politically damagingly, once JFK sided with MLK, J. Edgar Hoover redoubled his determination to discredit the Civil Rights Movement. 42 Part of this discrediting process was the statement by Assistant Director William C. Sullivan, "We must mark [King] now the most dangerous Negro this nation from the standpoint of communism ...." 43 Accusations of sexual impropriety began to appear, 44 apparently with white women as well as black. 45 FBI surveillance recordings contain a moan from a gathering of mixed male and female company of MLK. 46 It would seem that either some inappropriate sexual behavior occurred, or - infinitely more likely - MLK was aware of the surveillance and deliberately invited unpopularity so as to undermine JFK. Note that the fact that MLK never backed RFK in RFK's run for President - even after all the Kennedys did for Black America, indicates that the second possibility is indeed the correct one. 47

In 1963, MLK journeyed to Birmingham where he implemented his program of civil disobedience, and was jailed for doing so. While he was incarcerated, he became aware that the local clergy had issued a statement calling his activities there "unwise and untimely." He responded with his now famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail," in which he defended his activity. The following is an excerpt from that letter, dated April 16, 1963:

One of the basic points in your statement is that the action I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked, "Why didn't you give the new city administration time to act?" The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Conner, they are both segregationists, dedicated to the maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals. We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was well-timed in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

We have waited more than 340 years for our constitutional and God-given rights....48

There is no question that MLK had a valid point. However, there is also no question that the philosophy of relative urgency described in his letter represented a significant departure from the philosophy employed by the black leadership in the areas of both employment and school desegregation.49 It is certainly not unreasonable to believe that one objective of MLK was to create a political problem for the Kennedy administration.


Now it is time to take a look at Lee Harvey Oswald. Lee Harvey Oswald was 17 years old when he enlisted in the United States Marines. He was ultimately assigned to the U.S. airbase in Atsugi, Japan, which was one of two bases regularly used for U-2 landings and takeoffs.50 In September of 1959, he received a hardship discharge, and was put on reserve. On October 15, 1959, Oswald crossed the Finland-Soviet border and entered the Soviet Union.51 On October 31, he attempted to renounce his U.S. citizenship, and promised to disclose to the Soviets the knowledge that he possessed as a radio operator. 52 On November 16, an article appeared in the Fort Worth newspaper detailing the above. 53 He also received a visit from Priscilla Post, a former assistant to then-Senator JFK, and the substance of the above also appeared in the Boston newspapers.54 On May 1, 1960, Gary Frances Powers was reportedly shot down while flying a mission over the Soviet Union. On April 30, 1961, Oswald married Marina Prusakova. Later that year, Oswald began to write letters alleging Soviet persecution of his wife. 55 Oswald also wrote "manuscripts" detailing corrupt practices of Communist party officials and "almost prisonlike" restrictions on travel.56 On Feb. 1962 Powers was exchanged for Rudolph Abel and returned to the United States. Upon his return, he suggested that Oswald supplied the necessary information for the Soviets to shoot him down.57 On June 13, 1962, Oswald returned to the United States without the "red tape" that might have been expected under the circumstances. Oswald's activity in the Soviet Union looks a lot like an assist to Richard Nixon by way of establishing the need for somebody experienced in opposing communism. Moreover, his writings that were critical of the Soviet Union are reminiscent of Emma Goldman's My Disillusionment With Russia.

He moved to the Dallas-Fort Worth area in Texas after a brief stay in New Orleans. While in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, Oswald somehow procured employment as a photo print trainee with the Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, a firm that processed classified photos for the U.S. government. 58 After approximately a six month tenure of employment there, Oswald was fired during the first week of April of 1963. On April 10, 1963, a purported assassination attempt was made on Major General Edwin Walker. George de Mohrenschildt, a prominent "white Russian" with whom Oswald had become acquainted, asked Oswald how he had missed Walker. 59

Oswald then went to New Orleans, arriving there on April 25, 1963. 60 While there, he did three things crucial to the theory of the assassination presented by this website. First, on May 26, he wrote V. T. Lee, who was the national director of the Fair play for Cuba organization, requesting permission to rent an office (at Oswald's expense) for the purpose of forming a Fair Play for Cuba branch in New Orleans. Lee's reply was discouraging.61 Second, he passed out Fair Play for Cuba literature, one piece of which had the address of Guy Bannister's private detective office stamped upon it.62 Note that Guy Bannister was a former FBI agent who was a rabid anti-Communist, as well as both a member of the John Birch Society and the Minutemen. 63Third, apparently looking like nothing so much as a cue ball, he appeared in a voter registration line in Clinton, Louisiana, where nearly all the registrants were black. 64 Note that Oswald was arrested by the New Orleans police for a disturbance created while he passed out FPCC literature, and that he appeared on television explaining that he was a Marxist-Leninist.65 Note also that his activity in New Orleans makes it clear that Oswald did not move there to "lay low" in the aftermath of the purported attempt on Walker.

The fact that Oswald was openly accused of the purported attempt on General Walker considered in conjunction with his activities in New Orleans provide the key to what really happened in Dallas. In a nutshell, what really happened is best described by the concept "turnabout is fair play." As has been shown, JFK had two very large political problems with Cuba and with the unrest resulting from what is now known as the Civil Rights Movement. The activity undertaken by Oswald in New Orleans demonstrates that he was acting on behalf of the Kennedys. By exposing V.T. Lee's lack of enthusiasm, Oswald opened the legitimacy of the FPCC to question. That is to say, he illuminated the possibility of the FPCC being a mere ploy to stir civil unrest under JFK. By passing out FPCC literature with Bannister's address on it, Oswald attempted to create the impression that the real source of the civil unrest occasioned by the activities of the FPCC was an element of the conservative establishment. By associating himself - and thus Bannister and the conservative element of the establishment - with the black voter registration drive, Oswald also attempted to create the impression that the real source of the civil unrest caused by MLK was also an element of the conservative establishment. (And isn't it absolutely astonishing that this theory - which to say the very least is viable - has never appeared in print?)

The reader should note that phony assassination attempts are not a new concept in American history. Joseph Smith, Jr. (that's right, the Mormon prophet) was accused of sniping at and missing Missouri Governor Lillian Boggs, and the resulting anti-Mormon backlash was vicious. Interestingly, Smith was subsequently killed while in custody on another charge. 66 That's two unscathed assassination attempt survivors! The evidence that Oswald fired shots from the School Book Depository is overwhelming. 67

Assuming that the foregoing conclusion with regard to Oswald working for JFK is correct, how can the fact that he fired shots be explained other than by the assertion that he was staging a phony attempt? When Oswald was accused of attempting to assassinate Walker, he decided to switch employers, and moved to the Kennedy camp. His intent on November 22 was to fake an assassination attempt on JFK. This scenario explains why Oswald would pass up a much better shot when JFK was coming directly toward him while still on Houston Street. It also explains why he missed the first shot (the one he had the most time to line up) - he also deliberately missed the second and third. And it also explains why Oswald was so willing to be seen that he leaned out the window to get of the third and last shot. The fact that the Whitehouse, in establishing the criteria for a desirable motorcade route originating from Love Field and having the Trade Mart as its destination, effectively selected the motorcade route, is also completely consistent with the scenario given here.68


JFK did not want to invade Cuba. His role in the failure of the Bay of Pigs and the fact that the anti-Castro Cubans exiled in the United States turned on him adequately demonstrates this. What better way to punish a bunch of game boys (and game girls) who sought to rob the American working class's belly by creating a situation that they thought would benefit anti-labor forces than the combination of letting most of them languish under communist rule and some of them languish exiled from their own country? In late March of 1963, JFK ordered the FBI to enforce the Neutrality Act more vigorously due to attacks on Russian freighters by Cuban exiles. On July 31, 1963, FBI agents raided a cottage near Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana and seized more than a ton of dynamite, twenty 100-pound aerial bomb casings, bomb fuses and striker assemblies, a fifty-pound container of Nuodex, and the ingredients required to manufacture napalm. 69 The location had been reportedly used by various groups of Cuban exiles as a training camp for paramilitary action against Castro.70 Eleven arrests were made. Of the eleven arrested, all but two were apparently exiled Cubans.71 The FBI released all eleven arrestees shortly after their arrests were effected. 72 They have come to be known as the Lake Pontchartrain Eleven.

A serious question arises as to why the eleven arrestees were released without ever being charged notwithstanding JFK's mandate to the FBI to crack down on Neutrality Act violators. The answer asserted here provides a very good explanation of why anti-Castro Cubans were selected as the assassins. RFK was the Attorney General at the time the Lake Pontchartrain was conducted. While newspaper accounts of the raid do not indicate that arrests were made, they did indicate the fact that the raid occurred and described the seizure. The Kennedys could not have remained unaware of the raid. The decision not to prosecute therefore had to have been made by the Kennedys. Given JFK's mandate to enforce the Neutrality Act more vigorously, the decision not to prosecute seems anomalous.

This seeming anomaly is best explained as follows. Dr. Orlando Bosch participated in the Cuban Revolution on behalf of Castro. He subsequently turned against Castro, was exiled to the U.S., and became head of Insurrectional Movement for the Recovery of the Revolution (MIRR). In 1963, Bosch purportedly rebelled against his CIA handlers, and published a pamphlet entitled The Tragedy of Cuba, in which he charged the Kennedy Administration of betraying the cause of the Cuban exiles. Bosch sent one pamphlet to JFK.73 While it is unlikely that the Kennedys needed the pamphlet in order to acquire one, JFK's receipt of the pamphlet must have confirmed an already existent fairly good idea of what any trial against the anti-Castro Cubans would have looked like in the event that they chose to proceed on criminal charges against the Lake Pontchartrain Eleven. It seems clear that they were less than enthused about the prospect of having the nature of their administration's dealings with Cuba illuminated at a criminal trial, and were therefore content with merely confiscating the exiles' armaments.

Thus, two very good reasons for selecting members of the Lake Pontchartrain Eleven as the assassins emerge. The first is that all the reasons the Kennedys had for ducking any criminal trial for Cuban exiles' violation of the Neutrality Act still existed. The second is that, but for the Kennedy duck with regard to the exiles' violation of the Neutrality Act, JFK would not have been assassinated. Thus, even if the assassins had been apprehended, the Kennedys would still have suffered an embarrassment that they had previously felt necessary to avoid. Furthermore, the fact that the assassins would have been unable to perpetrate the assassination had they been duly prosecuted would have made it somewhat difficult for Kennedy supporters to levy blame elsewhere. While the two reasons given above are good, by far the best reason for selecting members of the Lake Pontchartrain Eleven is that the existence of an obvious motive on their part tended to obscure the real motive behind the assassination.

The actual assassins, then, were various members of the Lake Pontchartrain Eleven. They somehow found out about Oswald's bogus attempt and simply lobbed a real assassination on top of it, and they did so with silenced rifles.


"I now fully realize that only the powers of the Presidency will reveal the secrets of my brother's death."

Robert Francis Kennedy, June 3, 1968, almost four years after the Warren Report was made public and two days before he, too, was assassinated.) 75



The Warren Report is absurd. It contains at least four very large problems. One major problem concerns what has come to be known as the magic bullet. A second major problem concerns Oswald's motive that the Commission stopped just short of concluding he possessed. The third problem, and by far the most serious, is the Commission's explanation for Oswald's appearance and activity in New Orleans. The fourth major problem is the Commission's cavalier treatment of the fact that the defendant of the century was murdered while in custody.

Problem # 1: the "magic bullet"

The Warren Commission's conclusion that the assassination was accomplished by one and only one actor is possible if and only if one of the bullets that hit JFK also hit Governor Connelly. The necessity of the "magic bullet" (aka, the "stretcher bullet") theory was occasioned by two facts. First is that since the Commission concluded that Oswald only fired three times and that one shot missed, the two wounds to JFK and the wounds to Connelly must have been caused by only two bullets. The second is the fact that the maximum period of time that could have elapsed between the moment when both men were first shot was 1.8 seconds and the fact that the minimum period of time necessary for the Mannlicher to be fired twice is 2.3 seconds. The maximum time period was calculated from the Zapruder film as follows. JFK could not have been shot before frame 166. The foliage of an oak tree obstructed the view of JFK from the "snipers nest" from frame 166 through frame 206. JFK was smiling and waving in frame 207. Frame 207 was filmed more than two seconds after frame 166, and, even allowing for reaction time, it is clear that JFK could not have been hit before frame 166. Assuming that the first shot did in fact come from the "sniper's nest," it could therefore not have hit JFK before frame 207. Further analysis of the film considered with the nature of Connelly's wounds compels the conclusion that he could not possibly have been hit after frame 240. After the subtraction, there elapsed at most 33 frames between the time when JFK could first have been shot and the time when Connelly could last have been shot. Zapruder's movie camera was determined to have filmed 18.3 frames per second. At this speed, it would have taken approximately 1.8 seconds for Zapruder to shoot frames 207 through 240. The speed with which the Mannlicher rifle could be fired twice with a reasonable degree of accuracy was established by rifle expert trials. 76 Thus, if JFK's first wound and Connelly's wound were not caused by the same bullet, then there must have been either more than one shooter or one shooter that wasn't Oswald with a more capable weapon.

Couldn't load picture

The accuracy of the magic bullet theory depends upon several highly questionable premises. First and foremost is that the Zapruder film shows that Connally is holding his hat in his right hand approximately one and one-half seconds after JFK can be seen clutching his throat at the point where the magic bullet supposedly exited. Obviously, if indeed the bullet exited JFK's throat and then wounded Connally, it would have taken less than a second-and-a-half to do so. Connally's right wrist bone was shattered by the bullet that hit him to such an extent that it would have been impossible for him to continue to hold his hat in his right hand. Since Connally was holding his hat in his right hand a second-and-a-half after JFK can be seen clutching his throat, it seems clear that the bullet that shattered Connally's wrist bone could not first have exited JFK's throat.77

The second highly questionable premise upon which the magic bullet theory depends is that the purported magic bullet was found on Connelly's stretcher. Of course, had the bullet actually exited JFK and hit Connelly, it would have been found on Connelly's stretcher if on anybody's stretcher. The man who actually found the bullet was Darrell Tomlinson who was employed at the hospital where the victims were taken immediately after the shooting. After admitting that he was not certain, he stated that he believed the bullet had come from the stretcher in front of Connelly's in the emergency room. The Commission circumvented this inconsistency with an interesting piece of deductive analysis. It purported to demonstrate that the bullet could not have been found on JFK's stretcher, and deduced that it therefore must have been found on Connelly's stretcher. The method by which the Commission eliminated JFK's stretcher as the source of the magic bullet is as follows. There was evidence that the stretcher was moved to a trauma room immediately after JFK's body was taken off it, and that the sheets were then removed from it. Tomlinson, however, testified that the stretcher on which he found the bullet had a sheet on its foot. According to the Commission, since JFK's stretcher did not have a sheet on it and the stretcher upon which the bullet was found did have a sheet on it, the bullet could not have been found on JFK's sheet and therefore must have been found on Connelly's stretcher. The reader should note that the conclusion that JFK's stretcher had no sheet was reached via the testimony of two nurses first asked to recall a rather menial detail of a major event four months after it occurred. Two other witnesses in a position to corroborate the discovery of the bullet - O. P. Wright and David Sanders - were never questioned. 78

The third highly questionable premise upon which the magic bullet theory depends is that the magic bullet was found in nearly pristine condition, a fact which prompted forensic experts to opine that the bullet could not possibly have caused Connelly's wound because of the fact that the fragments found in Connelly's wrist wound were not missing from the bullet. All four medical examiners concurred on this point. No expert testimony was presented to counter their opinions. If the four examiners are correct, then the "magic bullet" obviously did not cause Connelly's wounds. If indeed it was found on Connelly's stretcher, one must wonder how it got there. Of course, this objection depends entirely upon the veracity of the forensic examiners, and difficulties can arise if they are relied upon here and then impugned on another issue.79

Other circumstances add to the implausibility of the magic bullet theory. One is that the autopsy report of the Commission is different than the summary report submitted to the Commission by the FBI. A crucial difference is that the FBI summary report states that the bullet that entered JFK and supposedly exited his body and caused Connelly's wounds in fact never exited JFK's body. Obviously, if the bullet never exited, it could not have caused Connelly's wounds, and the necessary conclusion would have been that there was either more than one assassin or one assassin other than Oswald with a more capable weapon. The Commission circumvented this difficulty with an explanation of why the FBI report differs from the autopsy adopted by the Commission. The difference was explained as follows. Two agents of the FBI attended the autopsy. The examiners at the autopsy were initially unable to find the bullets path through the body. The two agents concluded from the inability to find a path that the first shot to hit JFK never exited his body and left the room. It was only after they left that the path was discovered, and since they had already left the two agents remained unaware of the discovery. Thus the crucial difference in the two reports. 80

Another circumstance adding to the implausibility of the magic bullet theory is that initial reports of what the Commission concluded was a wound caused by the magic bullet's exit from JFK's throat described the wound as one of entrance, not exit. At a press conference held at Parkland Hospital on the afternoon of the assassination, Dr. Malcolm O. Perry stated that a single bullet could have caused the wounds by "entering through the throat, striking the spine, and being deflected upward with the point of exit being through the head. Complicating the matter still further was the fact that an emergency tracheotomy was performed by Dr. Perry on top of the wound, thus precluding more detailed post mortem examination. The Commission circumvented the apparent discrepancy between the initial report and its own conclusion regarding the nature of the throat wound as follows. The press conference atmosphere was described as bedlam. Because of the bedlam, the hypothetical nature of the questions and the conjectural nature of Perry's answers were obscured. The subsequently stated opinion of Dr. Perry was that judging solely from the physical characteristics, it could have been either an entrance wound or an exit wound. The Commission then proceeded to demonstrate the feasibility of this opinion with a laboratory experiment on mock soft tissue. 81

In addition to the "magic bullet" theory, one other major problem existed with the single assassin conclusion issued by the Commission. The Zapruder film shows that as a result of the final shot JFK's head snapped backwards and to his left. If indeed the final shot came from the rear of JFK as the Commission found, it would seem that the force of the bullet would propel movement of his head along the direction of travel of the bullet. The Warren Report never mentioned this anomaly.

Thus, in order to accept the Warren Commission's ostensible conclusion that Oswald was the sole assassin, one must accept that: 1) Connally was able to hold his hat in his right hand despite his right wrist bone having been shattered; 2) the person who found the bullet was incorrect with regard to where he said that he found the bullet; 3) the forensic experts who testified that the bullet was not missing enough fragments to coincide with the ones found in Connelly's wounds and could therefore not possibly have been the bullet to cause Connelly's wounds were incorrect; 4) the FBI autopsy report was incorrect; 5) the initial report that the throat wound was an entrance wound was incorrect; and 6) JFK's head jerked in a direction roughly opposite from which the direction of the second bullet traveled. While the acceptance of only one of these facts might justify only pause for concern, the requirement that each and every one of them be accepted in order to embrace the Warren Commission's conclusion compels its rejection. If the magic bullet hypothesis is rejected, it is necessary to conclude that either more than one assassin was involved or one assassin who wasn't Oswald and who possessed a more capable weapon than did Oswald was the assassin.

Problem # 2:Oswald's purported motive

The second major problem with the Warren Report is that it proffers a motive that is completely inconsistent with Oswald's behavior after being arrested and held in custody. As to why Oswald would want to kill JFK, the Commission opined that, "He sought for himself a place in history - a role as the "great man" who would be recognized as having been in advance of his times." 82 Unless Oswald thought it was a mark of greatness to be a patsy and wanted to be the greatest patsy in history, the Commission's opinion with regard to motive is impossible to reconcile with Oswald's post-assassination public assertions that he didn't kill anyone and that he was "just a patsy."

Problem #3: Why Oswald Went to New Orleans

The third major problem with the Warren Report is presented by the Commission's explanation of why Oswald went to New Orleans on April 24, 1963. The Commission concluded that Oswald went at the suggestion of his wife to escape any fallout from his alleged attempt on Walker's life and to look for a job. 83 However, later in its Report, the Commission states that, "Oswald was overbearing in relations with his wife. He apparently tried to be "the Commander" by dictating many of the details of their married life." 84 This attitude would not be all that surprising given that Oswald was a former "jarhead," three years Marina's senior, and living in his country to which Marina had but recently immigrated and about which she presumably knew less during an era when the men "wore the pants in the family." This "commander" mentality renders the Commission's explanation of why Oswald went to New Orleans unlikely from the outset. Since he was anything but inconspicuous during his stay there, the Commission's explanation does not even rise to the level of feeble.

Problem #4: Oswald's Treatment While in Custody

The Warren Report detailed the activity surrounding Oswald's detention as a suspect in the assassination. There are three incredible facts regarding this detention. The first incredible fact is that although he was purportedly interrogated for some twelve hours, no recordings were made of any interrogation sessions. 85 The second incredible fact is that, according to the Warren Report, "In all, more than 25 different persons participated in or were present at some time during interrogations."86 The third incredible fact is that Oswald was killed while he was in police custody. That any of these facts should occur in a case of such magnitude invites inquiry into the propriety of the conduct of the involved officials. That all three did occur demands it.

Couldn't load picture

The rather obvious purpose of recording statements made by either witnesses or suspects is to reduce the possibility of any subsequent dispute as to what the subject said in the statement. In a typical case, the statements of a suspect are recorded. In the typical case where the statement is recorded, the person who gives the statement can attack it only by asserting that the voice on the tape is not his or that he was under duress when he gave it. If the statement is videotaped, he must rely upon duress. In a case of the magnitude as the one against Oswald, it would seem that the police would go the extra mile to ensure at least the appearance of having all their "i"s dotted and their "t"s crossed. The failure of the authorities to do so in Oswald's case at least suggests the possibility that they preferred their version of what Oswald said to what Oswald actually said.

The Commission recognized that, in general, a large number of people present in an interrogation room reduces the chances of gaining the confidence of any suspect, and thus of procuring a truthful statement. In Oswald's case, the Dallas Chief of Police admitted that "we were violating every principle of interrogation." 87 It thus becomes incumbent to determine why a well-known and widely accepted principle of interrogation was knowingly violated in what could without exaggeration be termed "the case of the century." An answer that immediately suggests itself is that it is much more difficult to call 25 people liars than it is to call one or two people liars. While this explanation may not be the only possible one, it does comport fully with the possibility presented by the authorities' failure to record their interrogations of Oswald.

Due to the absence of any recordings whatsoever of Oswald's interrogation, Oswald's death left the 25 people who witnessed parts of the interrogation as the only sources of what was said during them. Since this was one effect of his death, it is least theoretically possible that it was one motive for his murder. When considered with the facts that the purpose of recording interrogations is to minimize the possibility of subsequent dispute, that Oswald's interrogation wasn't recorded, that having 25 people involved in the interrogation process "[violates] every principle of interrogation," and that 25 people were involved in Oswald's interrogation, this possibility can hardly be termed "remote." To put it bluntly, it is far more likely that 25 people - all cops - lied than it is that the authorities simply overlooked the benefits of recording the interrogation, unwittingly engaged in an interrogation process in violation of every principle of interrogation, and were merely negligent in permitting the defendant of the century to himself be assassinated. This likelihood is further increased by the absurdity of the alleged motive of Oswald's assassin - to spare JFK's widow the ordeal of a trial. When the facts that the police are a creation of the bourgeoise for the purpose of protecting bourgeoise interests, that the police have always acted in a manner consistent with the purpose of their creation, and that the salary paid the average police officer rose an extraordinary thirty-eight percent between 1964 and 1969 are considered with the irregularities of Oswald's interrogation, any doubt should be removed.

The content of Oswald's purported statements, while superficially consistent with regard to Oswald's public claims of innocence, are extremely incriminating. Oswald's interrogators claimed that Oswald denied owning the Mannlicher allegedly used to assassinate JFK. They claimed further that when Oswald was confronted with a picture of him holding a rifle and carrying a pistol, Oswald stated that a picture of his head was superimposed upon the body of someone else with a rifle and a pistol. Oswald is reported to have further stated that because of his experience in the area of photography, he would be able to demonstrate that the photograph was not authentic. When asked why he left the Book Depository immediately after the assassination, Oswald is reported to have stated that because of all the confusion, he didn't think any more work would be done that day. He is reported to have admitted stopping off at the boarding house, changing clothes, acquiring his pistol, and departing for the picture show.

When viewed from the perspective that the authorities didn't record the statements because they didn't like what Oswald said, violated every principle of interrogation in order to assemble the consistent but false testimony of 25 witnesses, and permitted Oswald to be killed so that he could not controvert the testimony of 25 witnesses, the content of Oswald's purported statements is easily understood. The authorities were stuck with Oswald's public claim of innocence, so they noted that he consistently maintained it during his interrogation. They were free to fabricate anything not contrary to what Oswald said publicly. Nothing publicly said by Oswald contradicted his purported denial of ownership of the Mannlicher (at least not directly). By reporting that Oswald did deny ownership and subsequently establishing that Oswald did own the rifle, the interrogating authorities manufactured the inference that since Oswald falsely denied ownership of the rifle, he also falsely denied using it to kill JFK. There is no question that Oswald left the scene almost immediately after the assassination occurred. Oswald's early departure from work immediately after the assassination looks a lot like flight. In the eyes of the law, flight is considered evidence of consciousness of guilt, a permissible inference being that guilt is what prompted the flight. If there is no alternative explanation for the early departure, then the likelihood that it was indeed guilt that prompted the flight increases. By attributing a woefully inadequate explanation to Oswald for his early departure, his interrogators were able to increase the appearance of Oswald's guilt notwithstanding his public claim of innocence.


At the time JFK was assassinated, the Attorney General for the United States was his brother, Robert Francis Kennedy (RFK). He remained in that position until September 3, 1964, when he resigned to run for Senator for the State of New York. The Warren Report, originally scheduled to be submitted on June 30, 1964, was not submitted until September 24, 1964, three weeks after RFK left the office of Attorney General. The question for RFK while he remained Attorney General was to prosecute for a conspiracy to assassinate his brother or not to prosecute. The "to prosecute" option was attended by at least several pitfalls. One was that he could be fired by President Lyndon Banes Johnson at any time for any reason, or even no reason at all. Another was that the effect of any eventual determination by the Warren Commission that was at odds with any prosecution instituted by RFK was unsettled by the law. Had the Warren Commission determined that the assassination had been accomplished by a lone gunman (as it eventually did), perhaps that finding would have served as basis for a dismissal of the criminal charge. The argument would have been that the United States government, through an entity created by the President of the United States and empowered by Congress determined that the assassination was accomplished by a lone gunman. How could the United States Attorney General then turn about and say that there was a conspiracy? Furthermore, even if a Warren Commission finding of no conspiracy would not have been an absolute bar to a federal prosecution for conspiracy, as a practical matter, it would have been extremely difficult to assert that conspiracy was proved beyond a reasonable doubt when some heavy-hitting officials found to the contrary. If a reasonable doubt does not exist in that situation, then when does it?

Added to these pitfalls was the potential for embarrassment presented by the selection of various members of the Lake Pontchartrain Eleven mentioned above. Still more potential for embarrassment was presented by Melba Marcades, much better known as Rose Cherami. Cherami was a hop-head prostitute with a mental health history who predicted that JFK was going to be assassinated while she was involuntarily incarcerated in a mental institution. Regardless of what she really said about the details of the assassination, her prediction indicates that she did indeed know something. Had RFK chosen to prosecute and called Cherami as a witness, he would have faced credibility problems similar in nature to one relying upon Rosemary Kennedy to reveal a Kennedy family secret. What a coincidence!

Once RFK left the position of Attorney General, the game shifted from either or preventing any prosecution by RFK or at least controlling it to making him look bad for not instituting a prosecution. The groundwork for this tactic had already been laid. Some of it consisted of accounts in foreign newspapers. One account that appeared in a Toronto newspaper stated that a telephone operator overheard someone on the other end of the line whisper "the President is going to be killed."88 This account, if true, necessarily implies the existence of co-conspirators. Another embarrassing account appeared in a German newspaper entitled The Strange Case of Oswald. The article not only stated that Oswald had taken a shot at Edwin Walker, but also that RFK had halted the investigation into the attempt. 89 Consider the impact of Jim Garrison's prosecution of Clay Shaw with regard to the Warren Commission's finding of no conspiracy. Shaw was charged with conspiring to murder JFK under Louisiana state law. The case was submitted to the jury, which seemingly demonstrated that it was possible to avoid a dismissal based solely upon the Warren Commissions finding of no conspiracy. (There is the argument that a federal finding of no conspiracy is binding on the feds but not the states.) Reports are that the jurors in the Clay Shaw case felt that Garrison adequately demonstrated the existence of a conspiracy, even though he missed on the identity of the conspirators. Thus, the entire country, as well as most of the rest of the world, became aware that there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK and that RFK did not prosecute anybody for it.

The assertion here that the Warren Report was intended to embarrass RFK is bolstered by the composition of the Warren Commission. The inclusion of Allan Dulles on it was plainly improper due to the fact that there was a contradiction in his account as opposed to that of JFK with regard to whether JFK had been briefed about any potential cover training of Cubans. Dulles obviously had a conflict of interest, and that did not stop the Warren Commission. How then could any conflict of interest explain away RFK's failure to prosecute while he was Attorney General? That's why Dulles was selected, notwithstanding that his inclusion would remain forever thereafter controversial.


It should be clear by now that neither the Mafia (assuming one even exists) nor a single faction of the government was even capable of: 1) creating the dichotomy presented by JFK / United Fruit versus Edward Hebert / Louisiana sugar; 2) preventing RFK, or any other state or federal prosecutor from prosecuting for conspiracy (Garrison filed his four years after the fact); or 3) causing the creation of the Warren Commission, the primary objective of which was to discredit RFK. It should also be clear that the state of Louisiana had too much to lose to permit any activity to overthrow Castro, as his overthrow would inevitably result in an increased import of Cuban sugar, and thus a decline in demand for sugar grown in Louisiana. It nonetheless did. Something much bigger was at work here, big enough even to be the motive for the eventual and non-coincidental assassination of RFK. JFK was pro-labor. As Senator from Massachusetts, JFK voted against the Taft-Hartley amendments. The Taft-Hartley amendments contained a proscription against most forms of the secondary boycott, which now appears in 29 U.S.C. 158(b)(4)(ii)(B). An example of a secondary boycott should suffice to demonstrate the concept. Suppose the employees at a factory of a certain manufacturer engage in a strike. Under the terms of the National Labor Relations Act, the manufacturer is entitled to replace the striking employees with other workers (replacement workers) in order to attempt to continue his manufacturing operations. The replacement of the striking employees would of course be futile if the manufacturer were unable to obtain the raw materials needed to manufacture his product. To prevent exactly this situation, the workers at the plant producing the raw material are prohibited from striking with the purpose of inducing their employer to cease doing business with the manufacturer, and employees in the transportation industry are prohibited from either refusing to transport the necessary raw materials to the manufacturer or refusing to transport the finished product from the manufacturer to its sales outlet. Workers in the transportation industry are peculiarly well situated to institute this type of secondary boycott. Obviously, it is difficult to overstate the impact on employee bargaining power that 29 U.S.C. 158(b)(4)(ii)(B) represents. JFK's vote against its passage, without more, is a very strong indication that he was pro-labor. There can be no doubt that as President, JFK continued to act in a manner favorable to the working man. On May 5, 1961, signed a minimum wage bill that raised the minimum wage a now-seemingly paltry twenty-five cents per hour. Much the same as the bill relatively recently signed by Bill Clinton, the increase was in two steps - a fifteen cent increase upon the effective date of the bill, and a ten cent raise two years thereafter. The increase, although now-seemingly paltry, was substantial due to the fact that the minimum wage prior to that point was one dollar per hour. It was estimated that the minimum wage measure would result in a pay increase for approximately three million workers. The law also extended the application of minimum wage requirements to approximately three and one-half million employees previously not covered, and provided over one-half million of them with eventual raises. The enactment of the minimum wage measure was recognized as a triumph for JFK. The House of Representatives is reported to have initially balked at his major recommendations, yielding only after the Senate passed a bill closely tailored to the pattern provided by JFK. JFK noted at the signing that $1.25 was "a very minimum wage" and that the new law was the first extension of coverage since the law first went on the books in 1938. Most importantly, he stated that while signing the bill gave him great satisfaction, it did not finish the job. He predicted greater gains in the months and years to come. 90

On January 17, 1962, JFK took what should have been a giant step in the direction of "greater gains" by circumventing Congress and signing into effect Federal Executive Order 10988. Under the terms of this order, federal employees were given the right to bargain collectively. The theory behind collective bargaining is that with it comes an increase in bargaining power. Reduced to the essentials of employment life in America, in the event of a work stoppage a group of employees is more difficult to replace than a single employee. The increase in bargaining power typically results in a higher wage, and it was clear that federal employees would soon be earning higher wages as a result of JFK's order. A dramatic example of the increase in bargaining power resulting from bargaining collectively rather than individually is seen within the police labor movement. Between 1964 and 1969, the average policeman's salary rose at an annual average rate of 6.7 percent. Over the same time period, the average annual increase in pay for both factory workers was four percent. Thus, the police out-gained the factory worker by approximately sixty eight percent. The success of the police in achieving these gains has been attributed to activism on the part of the officers enabled by the passage of statutes permitting the police to bargain collectively with their public employer.91 The economic impact of Order 10988 on the private sector would have been considerable had not the composition of the workforce begun to change. At that point in time, the salary or wage for government jobs compared very unfavorably to the pay scale for jobs in the private sector. This fact naturally resulted in a general preference for jobs in the private sector. Higher pay for government jobs eroded the preference for jobs in the private sector, and effectively reduced the supply of labor for employers in the private sector while the demand for labor in the private sector remained constant. It is axiomatic that if demand remains constant and the supply is decreased, then the price increases. Thus, Order 10988 threatened employers in the private sector with the prospect of paying higher wages.

JFK, then, was obviously pro-labor. Uncle Sam, has always been, is, and always will be anti-labor, and nowhere has this anti-labor animus been more clear than from within the legal system. Here are some of the more serious anti-labor antics. First is a comparison of the case of Commonwealth v. Pullis with The People v. Henry Trequier, James Clawsey, and Lewis Chamberlain (hereinafter Hatters). The lesson to be learned from considering the Pullis case in conjunction with the Hatters case is that in America's formative years it was unacceptable for employees to combine even when they had a constitutional right to do so but that it was acceptable for employers to combine. Every product of the American school system knows about the Dred Scott decision 92which held that a runaway slave must be returned to his owner as he was merely chattel. In United States v. Cruikshank,93 the United States Supreme Court held without discussion that the right to assemble guaranteed by the First Amendment applied only when the purpose of the assembly was to petition the legislature. Furthermore, neither party to the case even briefed the issue. The Sherman Anti-Trust Law was employed by the courts to keep unions from striking but not manufacturers from colluding. 94The Workers Compensation laws were enacted because employees injured at the workplace were effectively denied access to the courts. The imposition of martial law in response to an armed insurrection was held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, while the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of martial law imposed during labor unrest. 95For years, the Supreme Court ruled child labor laws duly enacted by Congress and duly ratified by the President unconstitutional. 96

Then came the Fruit Packers case.97 Recall that JFK was one of few who opposed the Taft-Hartley amendments to the National Labor Relations Act. Recall also that the key provision in that legislation was the general proscription against the secondary boycott. The Fruit Packers case involved an interpretation of that proscription as amended by the Landrum-Griffin Act. The case arose from activity which occurred after JFK was elected President. This activity occurred in Seattle Washington, the stomping ground of former president of the IBT Dave Beck, whose corrupt career was destroyed at the instance of RFK. As is typical, the Supreme Court of the United States was not required to hear the case but for whatever reason chose to do so. Because the case involved the interpretation of a law, the Fruit Packers court attempted to determine what Congress intended it to mean when they enacted it. The Fruit Packers court specifically stated that

[W]e have often cautioned against the danger, when interpreting a statute, of reliance upon the views of its legislative opponents. In their zeal to defeat a bill, they understandably tend to overstate its reach. "The fears and doubts of opposition are no authoritative guide to the construction of legislation. It is the sponsors that we look to when the meaning of the statutory words is in doubt." (Emphasis added.)

Even though RFK did not sponsor the bill (that would be two guys named Landrum and Griffin), what he said about it occupies approximately two pages of the Fruit Packers court's opinion. There is no question that the Supreme Court adopted an interpretation more favorable to labor than was RFK's. To summarize, the Fruit Packers case 1) arose from activity in a region that was hostile to JFK and that occurred after he was elected; 2) was heard by the Supreme Court even though it was not required to hear the case; and 3) unnecessarily and most inaccurately made RFK appear less favorably disposed toward labor than was the Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, it is certainly permissible to infer that this was the object of the exercise. Indeed, given the departure from a long history of ruling in favor of big business against labor, it is difficult not to. It is no coincidence that the case has a tendency to remove labor issues as a motive for the assassination.

Couldn't load picture

Couldn't load picture

The history of labor relations in America is replete with physical conflict and deaths surrounding labor disputes. There have been more than several instances where the constabulary, under whatever title, killed workers involved in a labor dispute. Indeed, according to no less a figure than Oliver Wendell Holmes, once martial law is imposed, soldiers were permitted to kill any who resisted their orders. 98 The assassination of JFK was merely a case of U.S. labor history repeating itself, this time with a whole lot of Cuban and Italian dust chucked into the public's eye. Oswald was working for the Kennedys -his activities in New Orleans are difficult to explain in any other way. When he staged a fake assassination attempt, a real assassination was lobbed on top of the fake one. The wet boys selected for the assassination were anti-Castro Cuban exiles. They were only too happy to perpetrate the assassination due to the fact that they blamed JFK for their being exiled. The selection of them as wet boys posed the potential for politically fatal embarrassment to RFK in the event he chose to prosecute, if he were indeed to be permitted to bring a prosecution at all. Oswald's treatment once incarcerated is almost impossible to explain by means other than those presented here. The Warren Report -an obvious absurdity -is easily seen as an attempt to embarrass RFK for not prosecuting, thus undermining his credibility both at home and abroad.

Here is a very brief blurb with regard to complicity. J. Edgar Hoover was notoriously anti-labor, and worked for anti-labor forces. He at least shares responsibility for the bust of the Lake Pontchartrain Eleven notwithstanding the near certainty that they would not be prosecuted. He was ultimately responsible for whatever shortcomings existed with regard to evidence provided (or not provided) to the Warren Commission. Most disturbingly, he personally acknowledged the existence of a Mafia, an existence that he had always denied, at exactly the right time to begin laying the blame for JFK's death upon it. There is no way that his name should be on the building that houses the Justice Department. The anti-labor antics of the legal profession have been lowlighted. Be advised that all of the members of the Warren Commission were lawyers, or at least had procured law degrees. Be further advised that the General Counsel to the Commission was a lawyer, as were all the Assistant Counsel. Be still further advised that all of the staff were also lawyers. No thinking man can regard the Warren Commission as anything other than an accessory after the fact to the murder of a pro-labor President. A careful reading of the Fruit Packers case virtually compels the conclusion that the United States Supreme Court - then headed by Earl Warren - went out of its way quite falsely to demonstrate that it regarded labor more favorably than did RFK, and thus ostentatiously elimanate labor considerations as a motive for JFK's assassination. Combining these two conclusions with the difficulties faced by the United Fruit Company in the wake of JFK's vote against the Taft-Hartley amendments reveals the motive. The scenario that persistently occurs to this author is that the Kennedys were planning to use Jimmy Hoffa to challenge the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act's proscription of the secondary boycott. 99 Almost every other scenario would render the deaths of JFK, RFK and Hoffa coincidental. Highly unlikely!



1. Margaret Truman, Harry S. Truman, William Morrow and Company, Inc., New York, 1973, at p. 7.
2. There is nothing inherently ugly, or even wrong, about communism. It is in fact the way the apostles and their fellow followers of Jesus lived after the death of Christ. Moreover, it is easy to argue that the story of Ananias and Sapphira compels that all Christians be communist. See Acts 5. Certainly one reason for the existence of so-called fundamentalism - that sect of Christianity which, inter alia, holds that the earth is only 6000 years old and that dinosaurs and man once cohabited it - is to say that not even they interpret the story of Ananias and Sapphira in such a manner.
3. Tad Szulc, Fidel: A Critical Portrait, William Morrow and Company, Inc., New York, 1986, at p. 101.
4. Id. at p. 117.
5. Id. at p. 139, 141.
6. Id. at p. 149.
7. Id. at p. 132.
8. Id. at p. 413.
9. New York Times, September 27, 1960, p. 1, col. 5.
10. See New York Times, September 12, 1960, p. 7, col. 6 (Unnamed Latin-American diplomat stating that the Senate Internal Security subcommittee's report on the State Department's handling of the Cuban Revolution, prepared by two Democratic Senators - one from Connecticut, aka Prescott Bushville, and another from Mississippi - looked like a throwback to McCarthyism) and New York Times, October 7, 1960, p. 1, col. 5 (JFK depicts Castro's "move toward the Communist camp").
11. Richard M. Nixon, Six Crises, Doubleday and Company, Inc., New York, 1962, p. 351-52.
12. New York Times, September 27, 1960, p. 21, col. 1, reporting on Castro's speech to the United Nations, 1960. ("Were Kennedy not a millionaire, illiterate and ignorant, then he would obviously understand that you cannot revolt against the peasants." )
13. Szulc, ibid., at p. 475.
14. Id. at p. 20.
15. New York Times, October 13, 1960, p. 1, col. 1.
16. Id. at p. 99.
17. On July 2, 1953, the government commenced litigation against the United Fruit Company for violation of the Sherman Anti-trust Act. The suit was ultimately settled in 1958, two years after United Fruit testified on the "problems of small business" before a Senate's Select Committee on Small Business. The hearings were closed to the public and press, but since "nothing objectionable" occurred at the hearings, transcripts were released to the press.
18. Id. at p. 100.
19. In Nixon's words, "The general 'image' to the end of the campaign was to be one of Kennedy stronger and tougher than I against Castro and Communism." Nixon, p. 357.
20. Warren Hinkle and William Turner, The Fish Is Red, Harper & Row, New York, 1981, at p. 82.
21. Id., at p. 77.
22. Id., at p. 81.
23. Nixon, ibid., at p. 354.
24. Id.
25. Id.
26. Id.
27. Id.
28. Id., at p. 355.
29. Id., at p. 354.
30. Id., at p. 354, in a footnote apparently added between the first and second editions. Without regard to the relative character of the two individuals (and Nixon cannot possibly win that one), there are three very good reasons to believe that JFK's denial was truthful. First and foremost of these reasons is that Nixon responded to JFK's position by attacking it as wrong and irresponsible. His response, if taken at face value, demonstrates that no government program to arm and train Cuban exiles even existed. Nixon's explanation for attacking JFK's position was his perception of the necessity to protect the covert nature of the program at all costs. Given this explanation, it is difficult to see why he later would add to the extent of the exposure of the program's existence by writing about it in his book, especially since its existence violated both federal and international law. The second good reason to believe that JFK's denial was truthful is that JFK did not need to know at that point in time when he was allegedly briefed. On July 23, 1960 (the date of the briefing), it was far from certain that JFK was going to win the Presidential election. At that time, he had no authority whatsoever by which even to influence Ike's foreign policy, far less implement one himself. If Nixon's allegation that JFK had been briefed was true, then the CIA divulged classified information to somebody who, had he lost the election, would never have needed to know, and who, until he won the election, couldn't have done anything about it anyway. Another reason to believe that JFK's denial was truthful is that his advocacy of using exiles to invade is easily explained by means other than knowledge of the alleged existence of a covert operation to arm and train them. That the resistance of the Batista regime was overcome by at most 1500 revolutionaries in a country where conditions were not ripe for revolution is simply incredible. It took America two wars and the threat of a third before an island relinquished its attempt to rule a continent. The southern states had roughly half the government and half the militia behind its attempt to revolt and still failed. By advocating the use of exiles for invasion purpose, JFK could easily have been merely underscoring the incredulity of the impeccably timed success of Castro's revolution. The rather pitiful failure of the Bay of Pigs operation only served to further underscore it.
31. Id., at p. 164.
32. Id., at p. 166.
33. Id.
34. Id.
35. Id.
36. Id.
37. The second reason is JFK's familiarity acquired from Whizzer White with the political situation that existed in Denver, Colorado during the 1920s. The political party in power there during that time was the Ku Klux Klan. Also headquartered there was Big Bill Haywood, a high official in the International Workers of the World (IWW), which embraced, or at least wanted to embrace, all who worked for a living, including women and blacks. Blacks (and for that matter women) eschewed the IWW, and chose to suffer under Klan local government.
38. See e.g., The Year of the Great Decision: NAACP Annual Report 46th Year 1954, at p. 50 - 60; see also the more than several replacements of strikers (And for the purposes of this site, it does not really matter why. Suffice it to say that the behaviour of the white worker toward his black counterpart was hardly noble.)
39. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Robert Kennedy and His Times, Houghton Mifflin Company Boston, 1978 at p. 343.
40. Id. at p. 344.
41. Id. at p. 346-349.
42. Id. at p. 352.
43. Id. at p. 353.
44. Id. at p. 362.
45. Id. at p. 339.
46. Id. at p. 364.
47. Id. at p. 873.
48. Letter From Birmingham Jail
49. See e.g., The Year of the Great Decision: NAACP Annual Report 46th Year 1954, at p. 50 - 60; see also Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 349 U.S. 294 (1955) (all deliberate speed).
50. Edward Jay Epstein, Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald, McGraw-Hill, 1978, at p. 65-66.
51. Id. at p. 94.
52. Id.
53. Id. at p. 99.
54. Id.
55. Id. at p. 144.
56. Id. at p. 145-46.
57. Id. at p. 120.
58. Id. at p. 192.
59. Id. at p. 214; see also the November 29 German newspaper article entitled The Strange Case of Oswald, in which Oswald was accused of sniping at Walker. The editor named Walker as the source, but Walker denied it. It may just have been the publishing of a rumor. To view a copy of the article with an accompanying translation, go to .
60. Id. at p. 215.
61. Id. at p. 218-19.
62. Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, United States Government Printing Office, 1964, (Warren Report) at p. 408.
63. Id. at p. 126-27.
64. Jim Garrison, On the Trail of the Assassins, Warner Books, 1988, at p. 123.
65. Warren Report at 407.
66. It is to say the least interesting to compare the death of Smith with that of David Koresh. (Huh, Georgie.)
67. Warren Report at p. 445.
68. The Warren Commission found that Lee Harvey Oswald (1) owned and possessed the rifle used to kill President Kennedy, (2) brought this rifle into the Depository on the morning of the assassination, (3) was present, at the time of the assassination, at the window from which the shots were fired, (4) resisted arrest by drawing a fully loaded pistol and attempting to shoot another police officer, and (5) possessed the capability with a rifle which would have enabled him to commit the assassination. (p. 195) The Warren Commission based its finding that Oswald owned and possessed the rifle used to kill JFK on the following evidence: (1) Lee Harvey Oswald purchased the rifle used in the assassination, (2) Oswald's palm print was on the rifle in a position which shows that he handled it while it was disassembled, (3) fibers found on the rifle probably came from the shirt Oswald was wearing on the day of the assassination, (4) a photograph taken in the yard of Oswald's apartment showed him holding this rifle, and (5) the rifle was kept among Oswald's possessions from the time of its purchase until the day of the assassination. (p. 129) The Warren Commission based its finding that Oswald brought the rifle into the depository on the morning of the assassination on the following evidence: that Lee Harvey Oswald (1) told the curtain rod story to Frazier to explain both the return to Irving on a Thursday and the obvious bulk of the package which he intended to bring to work on the next day; (2) took paper and tape from the wrapping bench of the depository and fashioned a bag large enough to carry the disassembled rifle; (3) removed the rifle from the blanket in the Paines' garage on Thursday evening; (4) carried the rifle into the Depository Building, concealed in the bag; and (5) left the bag alongside the window from which the shots were fired. (p. 137) The Warren Commission based its finding that Oswald was present at the time of the assassination at the window from which the shots were fired based on the following evidence. Fingerprint and palm print evidence establishes that Oswald handled two of the four cartons next to the window and also handled a paper bag that was found near the cartons. Oswald was seen in the vicinity of the southeast corner of the sixth floor approximately 35 minutes before the assassination and no one could be found who saw Oswald anywhere else in the building until after the shooting. An eyewitness to the shooting immediately provided a description of the man in the window that was similar to Oswald's actual appearance. This witness identified Oswald in a lineup as the man most nearly resembling the man he saw and later identified Oswald as the man he observed. Oswald's known actions in the building are consistent with his having been at the southeast corner window of the sixth floor at 12:30 p.m. (p. 156).
69. Hinkle and Turner, supra, p. 199.
70. Id. at p. 200.
71. Id. at p. 199.
72. Id. at p. 203.
73. Id., at p. 201, citing House Select Committee on Assassinations, Final Report, p.90 for the proposition that Bosch sent JFK a pamphlet.
75. Hinkle and Turner, supra, at p. 198.
76. Edward Jay Epstein, Inquest: The Warren Commission and the Establishment of Truth, The Viking Press, New York, 1966. at pp. 63-64.
77. Edward Jay Epstein, The Assassination Chronicles at p. 163.
78. Epstein, Chronicles at p. 95.
79. Id. at p. 94.
80. Id. at p. 68.
81. Warren Report at pp. 88-91
82. Id. at p. 423.
83. Id. at p. 725.
84. Id. at p. 417.
85. Warren Report at p. 598.
86. Id. at p. 199.
87. Id. at p. 200.
88. For a photocopy of the article, see
89. For a photocopy of the article and translation, see
90. New York Times, May 6, 1961, at p. 14, col. 2-3.
91. The Police Labor Movement: Problems and Perspectives, John H. Burpo, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois, 1971, pp. 11, 13.
92. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857).
93. 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
94. United States v. E.C. Knight, 156 U.S. 1 (1895); cf. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) with regard to impact upon interstate commerce.
95. Moyer v. Peabody, 212 U.S. 78 (1909).
96. Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918); Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Company, 259 U.S. 20 (1922).
97. Labor Board v. Fruit Packers, 377 U.S. 58 (1964).
98. Moyer v. Peabody, supra.
99. To see a challenge that at least should be successful, visit .

Back to main page.